[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d40ea85b-3612-10b3-0add-40d07e6d9ca5@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:54:05 +0530
From: Vivek Kumar Gautam <vivek.gautam@....com>
To: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, joro@...tes.org,
will.deacon@....com, mst@...hat.com, robin.murphy@....com,
eric.auger@...hat.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com, yi.l.liu@...el.com,
Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 10/11] uapi/virtio-iommu: Add a new request type to
send page response
Hi Jean,
On 9/21/21 9:46 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 03:21:46PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> Once the page faults are handled, the response has to be sent to
>> virtio-iommu backend, from where it can be sent to the host to
>> prepare the response to a generated io page fault by the device.
>> Add a new virt-queue request type to handle this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@....com>
>> ---
>> include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
>> index c12d9b6a7243..1b174b98663a 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
>> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ struct virtio_iommu_config {
>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_T_PROBE 0x05
>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_T_ATTACH_TABLE 0x06
>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_T_INVALIDATE 0x07
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_T_PAGE_RESP 0x08
>>
>> /* Status types */
>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_S_OK 0x00
>> @@ -70,6 +71,23 @@ struct virtio_iommu_req_tail {
>> __u8 reserved[3];
>> };
>>
>> +struct virtio_iommu_req_page_resp {
>> + struct virtio_iommu_req_head head;
>> + __le32 domain;
>
> I don't think we need this field, since the fault report doesn't come with
> a domain.
But here we are sending the response which would be consumed by the vfio
ultimately. In kvmtool, I am consuming this "virtio_iommu_req_page_resp"
request in the virtio/iommu driver, extracting the domain from it, and
using that to call the respective "page_response" ops from
"vfio_iommu_ops" in the vfio/core driver.
Is this incorrect way of passing on the page-response back to the host
kernel?
But I think this will have to be worked out with the /dev/iommu framework.
>
>> + __le32 endpoint;
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_PASID_VALID (1 << 0)
>
> To be consistent with the rest of the document this would be
> VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_F_PASID_VALID
Sure, will update this.
>
>> + __le32 flags;
>> + __le32 pasid;
>> + __le32 grpid;
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_SUCCESS (0x0)
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_INVALID (0x1)
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_FAILURE (0x2)
>> + __le16 resp_code;
>> + __u8 pasid_valid;
>
> This field isn't needed since there already is
> VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_PASID_VALID
Yes, sure will remove this field.
>
>> + __u8 reserved[9];
>> + struct virtio_iommu_req_tail tail;
>> +};
>
> I'd align the size of the struct to 16 bytes, but I don't think that's
> strictly necessary.
Will fix this. Thanks a lot for reviewing.
Best regards
Vivek
>
> Thanks,
> Jean
>
>> +
>> struct virtio_iommu_req_attach {
>> struct virtio_iommu_req_head head;
>> __le32 domain;
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists